-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2k
New issue
Have a question about this project? # for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “#”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? # to your account
[WIP] ng_ndp: Initial import of router discovery #2612
Conversation
efa4adc
to
6f1c927
Compare
Rebased to current #2555 |
6f1c927
to
a146e6e
Compare
Rebased to current #2555 |
b41e672
to
ee92c15
Compare
Rebased to current #2555 |
9f184dd
to
45554bf
Compare
28b65a3
to
5fbaf17
Compare
5fbaf17
to
0279330
Compare
0279330
to
a1df1e5
Compare
Rebased to current #2555 |
bca9153
to
c793834
Compare
Rebased to current #2555. |
c793834
to
ecad5e4
Compare
ecad5e4
to
603de1c
Compare
Rebased to current #2555 and squashed |
} | ||
} | ||
|
||
static bool _handle_pi_opt(kernel_pid_t iface, ng_pktsnip_t *pkt, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
mhm.. is there a reason it's nowhere noted what this function actually does?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Because this PR is still WIP :-) It handles the PI (prefix information) option, which disseminate a prefix through a sub-net.
Does this PR still depend on another one? |
Actually, the PR I spoke about is already open: #2910 |
@@ -123,6 +124,11 @@ typedef struct { | |||
uint8_t l2_addr_len; /**< Length of ng_ipv6_nc_t::l2_addr */ | |||
uint8_t flags; /**< Flags as defined above */ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Why does this comment say as defined above
, when the only definition “above” is actually in RFC 4861? When I first read that comment, I expected there to be a typedef'd enum which contained all possible flags, and the type of flags to be ng_ipv6_nc_config_flags
or something rather than uint8_t
... Would that make sense or am I missing something here?
(After skimming through RFC 4861, I'm assuming flags
refers to the M and O flags...)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It's a problem in general to reference a group of flags in doxygen. The defines prefixed with NG_IPV6_NC_...
in the document group "Flag definitions for ng_ipv6_ref_t
are meant. I'm against using enums for flags (see #2614 (comment) on that note). Have you maybe a better solution for referencing them?
This PR contains only router discovery. I will rebate it to #2910 as soon as that one reaches some maturity. |
Superseded by #3049 |
Depends on #2555 and #2721 and all their dependencies.
This is still very WIP, but I wanted to publish it anyways.